The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904).

Great Britain. High Court of Justice. Chancery Division.

Date:: [1904?]

Credit: The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

263/284 (page 259)

$2o9 If he worked near the hospital it would certainly come to niv Felnnary ir,, 1904 knowledge. 2908. If he had a permanent occuiiatioii it woidd ? —Yes. 290SA. Supposing it was a mattei'of ciiance ? ~-.\o, it would not .\ then. 29()Si:. Take the case of a man who is a locomotive di iv(!i; on the Great Northern Kailway at Bestwood. and who takes his engine to and fro along the Great Noi-theen line in front of the hospital to the colliery just to the north. su{)posing he was doing that on the ISth. B 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd of January, and has devek)ped small-pox i —Would you give me the dates when he was driving. 2909. From the 18th to the 22nd he lias developed small-])o\ '{— Developed small-pox when i 2910. That means witliin the last day or so? Ir is very im})ortant to know the <hiy if you are going to ask a (|uestion u])on it. 2911. This being sent us l)y telc^gi-am, as.sume that it is within the last two days ?—Assume that wonld have been on the K)th. 2912. Assume that it is discovered that he has got small-pox? — Yes, quite so. 1) 2913. That is the date of the discovery when he actually took it?—1 do not know what you aie asking meal)out. 2914. What I was going to ask yon was this, if you were investigating that case would you attribute any weight to his having worked his engine in the inunediate neighl)ourho()d of the h()s])ital on K those days ? - Most certainly not. 2915. You would not?—Most certainly not. 291B. Why not ?—I should enquire for another reason and (expect to find it, and if I did not find it I shoidd say I had failed to find it. I would not attribute it to the hospital if he was running his engine F past the hospital on certain days. 2917. You would put the hospital out of it —Certainly. 2918. You would look for other reasons —Certaiidy. 2919. If you could not find other reasons?—If I could not trace it I .should say it was untraeed. but I should not trace it to th(> hospital certainly. 292(>. That is all I wanted to know ? —The same would a})piy to the cases of ships passing along an infected centre on the Thames. 2921. Are you acquainted with the Liverpool history?—I do not know what you are referring to. H 2922. It was in the evidence of Di'. Hope on Saturday, and 1 have had an oppoi'tunity of doing since what I had not an oppor- tunity of doing whilst he was in the box—of looking at the history of Liverpool. What he said rather struck me with regard to the Netherfield Hospital. This is in the answer to Question 2204 : This$